"How could you believe that?"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-12-2012, 09:18 AM
RE: "How could you believe that?"
(07-12-2012 09:05 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(07-12-2012 09:02 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  I don't understand this mindset that you can be a non-YEC and still believe in the bible.

Anything that isn't YEC conflicts with the bible.
Because history points to Genesis as not being written as a literal account. It was never taken literally until fairly recently.
It's taken literally ALL the time. It's only things that are proven wrong that have become "Oh it's not literal".


How about this KC, if it's not suppose to be a literal interpretation, then why is 'God' considered to literally exist?


Also what history points to Genesis not being a literal account?
It comes across (the whole bible actually) as supposing to be a literal account to me.

I don't believe that it has only recently started to be taken literally, not when I have read extensively on history starting around the same time as Rome starting to expand right up till today.
Both those arguments sound like weak false counter-arguments Christians have wished up over the years and actually have no prove to back them up.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 09:20 AM
RE: "How could you believe that?"
Cognitive Dissonance for those that believe that bible is literally true but still hold onto scientific ideas, theories, and hypotheses that contradict that belief in biblical inerrancy. They may not be aware of it in some cases as they may not be aware of A) what the bible actually says and/or B) they don't know which scientific ideas they believe in actually and how they contradict scripture.

You are incorrect to say that ECs and TEs have the support of science. They have a method by which they have tried to reconcile their faith with science, but science lends no support to any such notion. It can't refute it, sure but it also can't refute the Loch Ness monster. They may support science, but science doesn't publish papers with the closing of "and of course this was all set in motion by god." Science just deals with nature, when other people start taking what science says, discovers, and finds and then adds in god, or says god set it in motion, they are not supported by science, they are altering science and making a non-scientific claim.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 09:27 AM
RE: "How could you believe that?"
(07-12-2012 09:18 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(07-12-2012 09:05 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Because history points to Genesis as not being written as a literal account. It was never taken literally until fairly recently.
It's taken literally ALL the time. It's only things that are proven wrong that have become "Oh it's not literal".


How about this KC, if it's not suppose to be a literal interpretation, then why is 'God' considered to literally exist?


Also what history points to Genesis not being a literal account?
It comes across (the whole bible actually) as supposing to be a literal account to me.

I don't believe that it has only recently started to be taken literally, not when I have read extensively on history starting around the same time as Rome starting to expand right up till today.
Both those arguments sound like weak false counter-arguments Christians have wished up over the years and actually have no prove to back them up.
The Bible isn't one, single, cohesively written book. It's a collection. Each one has to be judged separately based on the history, audience, and writing style.

And I guess I should have been clear on "recently". "Recently" is relative to the entire time frame of the YHWH. It wasn't until the HRE that the Bible started to be taken literally.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 09:34 AM
RE: "How could you believe that?"
(07-12-2012 09:20 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Cognitive Dissonance for those that believe that bible is literally true but still hold onto scientific ideas, theories, and hypotheses that contradict that belief in biblical inerrancy. They may not be aware of it in some cases as they may not be aware of A) what the bible actually says and/or B) they don't know which scientific ideas they believe in actually and how they contradict scripture.

You are incorrect to say that ECs and TEs have the support of science. They have a method by which they have tried to reconcile their faith with science, but science lends no support to any such notion. It can't refute it, sure but it also can't refute the Loch Ness monster. They may support science, but science doesn't publish papers with the closing of "and of course this was all set in motion by god." Science just deals with nature, when other people start taking what science says, discovers, and finds and then adds in god, or says god set it in motion, they are not supported by science, they are altering science and making a non-scientific claim.
Cognitive dissonance is only applicable to creationists then? Because Evolutionary Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists don't alter science to fit within scripture or make special claims.

Moreover, they do simply deal with nature and see evolution as is. They just take it one step further to answer the question of "how". Since no one can actually answer that question anyway, it is more or less an opinion. Non-religious will formulate a probably cause according to science, while Christians will just say "God did it". Neither claim is correct or incorrect because neither claim can be proved or disproved because of a lack of empirical evidence.

This doesn't negate the science of a EC or a TE; likewise, ECs and TEs do not intermingle science and theology so you will never see official science papers or documents from them with hints of theology. They keep science and theology separate.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 09:36 AM
RE: "How could you believe that?"
(07-12-2012 09:27 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(07-12-2012 09:18 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  It's taken literally ALL the time. It's only things that are proven wrong that have become "Oh it's not literal".


How about this KC, if it's not suppose to be a literal interpretation, then why is 'God' considered to literally exist?


Also what history points to Genesis not being a literal account?
It comes across (the whole bible actually) as supposing to be a literal account to me.

I don't believe that it has only recently started to be taken literally, not when I have read extensively on history starting around the same time as Rome starting to expand right up till today.
Both those arguments sound like weak false counter-arguments Christians have wished up over the years and actually have no prove to back them up.
The Bible isn't one, single, cohesively written book. It's a collection. Each one has to be judged separately based on the history, audience, and writing style.

And I guess I should have been clear on "recently". "Recently" is relative to the entire time frame of the YHWH. It wasn't until the HRE that the Bible started to be taken literally.
But like I say, they took 'God' as being literal.
They take heaven and hell as being literal.
They take the people in the stories as being literal.

They literally believe God created the earth and put on a single man and women. I mean they used this as a way to how everything was made just as some native tribe believing the world was delivered in the post or whatever.
It's how they literally describe how shit happened.

How can you say Genesis is to be taken in a non-literal way when it's the bit that describe where everything came from, if anything Genesis is suppose to be the MOST literal one.
It's the the whole reason the bible and Christianity came to be. People wanted shit explained ("yo, shaman, where did shit come from") and Genesis is the Christian whatever year BC way of explaining it.
I mean that's why it's the first bit!

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 09:39 AM
RE: "How could you believe that?"
But adding in a question of How and answering it with god isn't science and is not supported by science. They might believe in evolution, but they add an unscientific assertion to it that is not supported by science.

Cognitive Dissonance doesn't just apply to YEC, but the manner in which I was using it was referring to them specifically.

I will also add that cognitive dissonance might still apply to someone who uses science to explain nature and reality, accepting evidence as a means by which to evaluate the validity of a claim, and then chooses to believe in something else in spite of that. I think it is very common to think that they have evidence to support it, but ultimately find themselves using the argument from ignorance whereby they can't connect their belief with the "evidence" they cite.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 09:45 AM
RE: "How could you believe that?"
(07-12-2012 09:36 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(07-12-2012 09:27 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  The Bible isn't one, single, cohesively written book. It's a collection. Each one has to be judged separately based on the history, audience, and writing style.

And I guess I should have been clear on "recently". "Recently" is relative to the entire time frame of the YHWH. It wasn't until the HRE that the Bible started to be taken literally.
But like I say, they took 'God' as being literal.
They take heaven and hell as being literal.
They take the people in the stories as being literal.

They literally believe God created the earth and put on a single man and women. I mean they used this as a way to how everything was made just as some native tribe believing the world was delivered in the post or whatever.
It's how they literally describe how shit happened.

How can you say Genesis is to be taken in a non-literal way when it's the bit that describe where everything came from, if anything Genesis is suppose to be the MOST literal one.
It's the the whole reason the bible and Christianity came to be. People wanted shit explained ("yo, shaman, where did shit come from") and Genesis is the Christian whatever year BC way of explaining it.
I mean that's why it's the first bit!
You would be surprise at how right you are.

The only difference is that God used a story to explain His covenant with man.

It's a fantasy story (based on true events). Much like many ANE stories of the time. These stories were hyperbolic and outrageous. God just used this contemporary medium to convey His message to His people at the time. That's all it was.

The main focus in the Creation Story is God's relationship and covenant with mankind. The other parts were just filler as to how it came to be. Those parts were never meant to be taken literally.

I'm not just blowing smoke at you either... talk to anyone who has ever studied ANE literature. They will tell you the same. Their is very confusing blend of history, truth, fantasy, and myth blended into their literature.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 09:46 AM
RE: "How could you believe that?"
(07-12-2012 09:39 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But adding in a question of How and answering it with god isn't science and is not supported by science. They might believe in evolution, but they add an unscientific assertion to it that is not supported by science.

Cognitive Dissonance doesn't just apply to YEC, but the manner in which I was using it was referring to them specifically.

I will also add that cognitive dissonance might still apply to someone who uses science to explain nature and reality, accepting evidence as a means by which to evaluate the validity of a claim, and then chooses to believe in something else in spite of that. I think it is very common to think that they have evidence to support it, but ultimately find themselves using the argument from ignorance whereby they can't connect their belief with the "evidence" they cite.
But that "adding" isn't science. That's what I'm saying. It's theology. They don't claim it as part of science.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 09:48 AM
RE: "How could you believe that?"
But you claim they are supported by science.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 09:57 AM
RE: "How could you believe that?"
(07-12-2012 09:48 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But you claim they are supported by science.
Claim who is supported by science?

Theological claims are never supported by science and vice versa. Theological claims can be reconciled with science, though. They aren't one in the same and, again, are completely separate.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: